Xbox One is unconstitutional LOL "muh rights"

[QUOTE="carljohnson3456"][QUOTE="CaseyWegner"]

i don't think it's been disclosed what they do.

CaseyWegner

because it would take millions of people to monitor everyone.

[QUOTE="carljohnson3456"][QUOTE="CaseyWegner"]

i don't think it's been disclosed what they do.

CaseyWegner

because it would take millions of people to monitor everyone.

No.

It takes some bots to first filter people who really are a threat according to the elements searched through the filtering. Something like the Golden Shield Project (chinese firewall that prevents anti-government content to be accessed by chinese citizens - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Shield_Project) would be more than enough for this.

Then you can determine the size of the crew you need to monitor those people. Depending on what you find you wouldn't really need a large personnel for that.

[QUOTE="CaseyWegner"]

[QUOTE="carljohnson3456"] Then how exactly do you know "its not really that" then? Besides the "lock your doors" analogy. Look, the government tracking my phone calls or texts or whatever is one thing.... the government being able to record me in MY HOME is another. Not happy about that idea. SambaLele

because it would take millions of people to monitor everyone.

No.

It takes some bots to first filter people who really are a threat according to the elements searched through the filtering.

Then you can determine the size of the crew you need to monitor those people. Depending on what you find you wouldn't really need a large personnel for that.

yes. that's not what the person several posts above was talking about.

[QUOTE="SambaLele"]

[QUOTE="CaseyWegner"]

because it would take millions of people to monitor everyone.

CaseyWegner

No.

It takes some bots to first filter people who really are a threat according to the elements searched through the filtering.

Then you can determine the size of the crew you need to monitor those people. Depending on what you find you wouldn't really need a large personnel for that.

yes. that's not what the person several posts above was talking about.

Well... it isn't and the same time it is the same thing he was talking about, because you don't know what is going to be considered suspicious behavior.

Snowden said in this interview (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5yB3n9fu-rM) that the government oftenly behaves like a paranoid chasing and monitoring "suspects", which are innocent.

[QUOTE="ClassicRockFTW"]

[QUOTE="CaseyWegner"]

does this really, truthfully bother anyone?

CaseyWegner

I don't know, do you mind the government stripping you of your privacy?

i don't care if they know that i ordered a pizza last friday.

Hello Josef Goebbels.  (No Godwins law as this directly applies to your stance).

NTHNTF.  Please at the very least education yourself on why this is such a flawed perception of lost privacy.

[QUOTE="CaseyWegner"]

[QUOTE="Keiji993"] Then how exactly do you know "its not really that" then? Besides the "lock your doors" analogy. Look, the government tracking my phone calls or texts or whatever is one thing.... the government being able to record me in MY HOME is another. Not happy about that idea. carljohnson3456

because it would take millions of people to monitor everyone.

[QUOTE="CaseyWegner"]

[QUOTE="carljohnson3456"] Then how exactly do you know "its not really that" then? Besides the "lock your doors" analogy. Look, the government tracking my phone calls or texts or whatever is one thing.... the government being able to record me in MY HOME is another. Not happy about that idea. superclocked

because it would take millions of people to monitor everyone.

[QUOTE="CaseyWegner"]

[QUOTE="carljohnson3456"] Then how exactly do you know "its not really that" then? Besides the "lock your doors" analogy. Look, the government tracking my phone calls or texts or whatever is one thing.... the government being able to record me in MY HOME is another. Not happy about that idea. superclocked

because it would take millions of people to monitor everyone.

and they'll need a new one each time somebody buys an xbox one. what about the job they were doing before?

[QUOTE="CaseyWegner"]

[QUOTE="SambaLele"]

No.

It takes some bots to first filter people who really are a threat according to the elements searched through the filtering.

Then you can determine the size of the crew you need to monitor those people. Depending on what you find you wouldn't really need a large personnel for that.

SambaLele

yes. that's not what the person several posts above was talking about.

Well... it isn't and the same time it is the same thing he was talking about, because you don't know what is going to be considered suspicious behavior.

Snowden said in this interview (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5yB3n9fu-rM) that the government oftenly behaves like a paranoid chasing and monitoring "suspects", which are innocent.

it's really not what he was talking about.

[QUOTE="SambaLele"]

[QUOTE="CaseyWegner"]

yes. that's not what the person several posts above was talking about.

CaseyWegner

Well... it isn't and the same time it is the same thing he was talking about, because you don't know what is going to be considered suspicious behavior.

Snowden said in this interview (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5yB3n9fu-rM) that the government oftenly behaves like a paranoid chasing and monitoring "suspects", which are innocent.

it's really not what he was talking about.

[QUOTE="superclocked"][QUOTE="CaseyWegner"]

because it would take millions of people to monitor everyone.

ShaineTheNerd

[...] you should defend your rights and privacy [...]HAZE-Unit

[QUOTE="ShaineTheNerd"][QUOTE="superclocked"]Between federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies, they have 10's of millions of employees monitoring people...superclocked

[QUOTE="CaseyWegner"]

[QUOTE="SambaLele"]

 

Well... it isn't and the same time it is the same thing he was talking about, because you don't know what is going to be considered suspicious behavior.

Snowden said in this interview (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5yB3n9fu-rM) that the government oftenly behaves like a paranoid chasing and monitoring "suspects", which are innocent.

faizan_faizan

it's really not what he was talking about.

it's an internet style.

[QUOTE="carljohnson3456"][QUOTE="CaseyWegner"]

i don't think it's been disclosed what they do.

CaseyWegner

because it would take millions of people to monitor everyone.

[QUOTE="CaseyWegner"]

[QUOTE="carljohnson3456"] Then how exactly do you know "its not really that" then? Besides the "lock your doors" analogy. Look, the government tracking my phone calls or texts or whatever is one thing.... the government being able to record me in MY HOME is another. Not happy about that idea. ClassicRockFTW

because it would take millions of people to monitor everyone.

again, not what the guy was talking about.

So people want to be spied on?clyde46

i don't think anybody is saying that.

does this really, truthfully bother anyone?

CaseyWegner

[QUOTE="CaseyWegner"]

does this really, truthfully bother anyone?

ClassicRockFTW

I don't know, do you mind the government stripping you of your privacy?

[QUOTE="CaseyWegner"]

does this really, truthfully bother anyone?

blackace

>WHAT IS THE CONSITUTION?

>WHAT IS THE VIOLATION OF BOTH OF THESE?

Also, I think you mieant "couldn't" care less, if you could care less then you are implying that you care .

[QUOTE="CaseyWegner"]

does this really, truthfully bother anyone?

blackace

For me, I have no reason to fear this, but its not so much about whether or not you or I are sketchy people with shady on goings, its about what the precedent this sets. Lets take for instance gay marriage. Im not gay, so this doesnt really affect me in any way, form or manner, but do I still support gay marriage? yes. Why? because of the idea behind it, the idea of equality of all people. Just because gay marriage does not affect me in any shape or form, doesnt mean the underlying issue doesn't. If you can classify a group of people as second class citizens due to their sexual orientation, how is that any different from classifying people as second class citizens due to their race? With that legal precedent placed, it will be a lot easier to segregate, and mistreat people based on other lines. That's my concern with gay marriage.

So now regarding the X1 privacy issues. No, im not a terrorist or drug dealer or any such thing but do I want the precedent of allowing the government to spy on me 24/7 as they see fit? Heck no, and do you know why? Because laws change and evolve with time. The argument that "well im not shady so it doesnt bother me" is flawed for this reason. Remember the classic book 1984? Lets take Winston or any one living in the dystopia. Using that argument you could say "Well, there is nothing wrong with what the government is doing! If Winston just acted right and wasnt a shady, it shouldnt bother him that the government is all up his ass!" But that assumes the laws and regulations you are facing are fair and just. What if a new law is introduced that you deem to be completely unfair and injust?

For instance, a while there was talk about banning smoking inside a car in the UK, I think it was. Imagine if that was imposed for a home situation, and you happen to be playing X1 and u say one of the key trigger words that the NSA uses to spy on you and you happen to be smoking a ciggy in your house, cause you dont think the government has a right to tell you you cant smoke in your own house. I doubt the NSA would do anything about it, but if anyone ever wanted to make a case against you about it, they would now be tangible proof and evidence.Sure the argument could be made that "Well, then dont break the law!" but if that attitude was universal, I would probably on a plantation somewhere with chains around my neck picking cotton, cause no one had the balls to stand up to unjust laws.

Just my thoughts on the issue.

[QUOTE="ClassicRockFTW"][QUOTE="CaseyWegner"]

because it would take millions of people to monitor everyone.

CaseyWegner

again, not what the guy was talking about.

If they don't need millions of employees to monitor people since they can filter, through bots, what's minimally suspect (given the ocasional errors that would lead to unjust monitoring), but that's not what he meant, then what's the heart of the matter in that discussion?

[QUOTE="CaseyWegner"]

[QUOTE="ClassicRockFTW"]WHAT IS ADVANCED RECOGNITION SOFTWARESambaLele

again, not what the guy was talking about.

If they don't need millions of employees to monitor people since they can filter, through bots, what's minimally suspect (given the ocasional errors that would lead to unjust monitoring), but that's not what he meant, then what's the heart of the matter in that discussion?

he was making it seem like there would be a dedicated person watching you 24/7.

So people want to be spied on?clyde46

No, americans are just too lazy to do anything about it beyond bitch on the internet.

Keep dancing with the stars on tv, keep cheeseburgers infront of them, and make them afraid enough to not stand up and say no. Do those things and people will never aspire to trying to band together to force real change. Real change would require sacrifice and pain, no one is willling to do that.

[QUOTE="SambaLele"]

[QUOTE="CaseyWegner"]

again, not what the guy was talking about.

CaseyWegner

If they don't need millions of employees to monitor people since they can filter, through bots, what's minimally suspect (given the ocasional errors that would lead to unjust monitoring), but that's not what he meant, then what's the heart of the matter in that discussion?

he was making it seem like there would be a dedicated person watching you 24/7.

There's no need for that, and this is the reason for anyone to be worried about. They'd have the video feed stored, and would only check it if the bot tagged you (by error or not).

Watch the Snowden interview I pointed before, you'll know why he chose to disclose the work he did in the NSA.

A bot pointing that you said or done something suspect, even if in a random conversation, can turn you into a subject of federal investigation when you were just making a joke with a friend. There were cases of them nitpicking alleatory data, that brought together represent someone who isn't the real you, just to create a picture of a dangerous suspect.

It all comes to this: you can become a victim of state paranoia.

And there's no need for you to be watched 24/7 for that to happen. They'd just choose the video feeds that mattered to them, doesn't matter how long or short it would need to be, could be of about a couple seconds, to justify the investigation. And that selection be first selected by a bot filter, not a human being. Then you'd have to be monitored even if to register that it was a "false alarm".

[QUOTE="CaseyWegner"]

[QUOTE="SambaLele"]

 

If they don't need millions of employees to monitor people since they can filter, through bots, what's minimally suspect (given the ocasional errors that would lead to unjust monitoring), but that's not what he meant, then what's the heart of the matter in that discussion?

SambaLele

he was making it seem like there would be a dedicated person watching you 24/7.

There's no need for that, and this is the reason for anyone to be worried about. They'd have the video feed stored, and would only check it if the bot tagged you (by error or not).

Watch the Snowden interview I pointed before, you'll know why he chose to disclose the work he did in the NSA.

A bot pointing that you said or done something suspect, even if in a random conversation, can turn you into a subject of federal investigation when you were just making a joke with a friend. There were cases of them nitpicking alleatory data, that brought together represent someone who isn't the real you, just to create a picture of a dangerous suspect.

It all comes to this: you can become a victim of state paranoia.

And there's no need for you to be watched 24/7 for that to happen. They'd just choose the video feeds that mattered to them, doesn't matter how long or short it would need to be, could be of about a couple seconds, to justify the investigation. And that selection be first selected by a bot filter, not a human being. Then you'd have to be monitored even if to register that it was a "false alarm".

understood but i don't think everybody gets that as is evident in this thread.

[QUOTE="SambaLele"]

[QUOTE="CaseyWegner"]

he was making it seem like there would be a dedicated person watching you 24/7.

CaseyWegner

There's no need for that, and this is the reason for anyone to be worried about. They'd have the video feed stored, and would only check it if the bot tagged you (by error or not).

Watch the Snowden interview I pointed before, you'll know why he chose to disclose the work he did in the NSA.

A bot pointing that you said or done something suspect, even if in a random conversation, can turn you into a subject of federal investigation when you were just making a joke with a friend. There were cases of them nitpicking alleatory data, that brought together represent someone who isn't the real you, just to create a picture of a dangerous suspect.

It all comes to this: you can become a victim of state paranoia.

And there's no need for you to be watched 24/7 for that to happen. They'd just choose the video feeds that mattered to them, doesn't matter how long or short it would need to be, could be of about a couple seconds, to justify the investigation. And that selection be first selected by a bot filter, not a human being. Then you'd have to be monitored even if to register that it was a "false alarm".

understood but i don't think everybody gets that as is evident in this thread.

Changing goal posts I see. 

pretty soon the lemmings wont even be able to take a dump without microsoft watching.

[QUOTE="CaseyWegner"]

[QUOTE="SambaLele"]

There's no need for that, and this is the reason for anyone to be worried about. They'd have the video feed stored, and would only check it if the bot tagged you (by error or not).

Watch the Snowden interview I pointed before, you'll know why he chose to disclose the work he did in the NSA.

A bot pointing that you said or done something suspect, even if in a random conversation, can turn you into a subject of federal investigation when you were just making a joke with a friend. There were cases of them nitpicking alleatory data, that brought together represent someone who isn't the real you, just to create a picture of a dangerous suspect.

It all comes to this: you can become a victim of state paranoia.

And there's no need for you to be watched 24/7 for that to happen. They'd just choose the video feeds that mattered to them, doesn't matter how long or short it would need to be, could be of about a couple seconds, to justify the investigation. And that selection be first selected by a bot filter, not a human being. Then you'd have to be monitored even if to register that it was a "false alarm".

ClassicRockFTW

understood but i don't think everybody gets that as is evident in this thread.

Changing goal posts I see. 

umm...how? :|

pretty soon the lemmings wont even be able to take a dump without microsoft watching.

SonySoldier-_-

[QUOTE="SonySoldier-_-"]

pretty soon the lemmings wont even be able to take a dump without microsoft watching.

ShaineTheNerd

but they do on their living room and bedrooms. 

Microsoft - giving the government camera and audio access since 1986

[QUOTE="ShaineTheNerd"][QUOTE="SonySoldier-_-"]

pretty soon the lemmings wont even be able to take a dump without microsoft watching.

Krelian-co

but they do on their living room and bedrooms. 

Microsoft - giving the government camera and audio access since 1986

[QUOTE="ShaineTheNerd"][QUOTE="superclocked"]It was actually just a guess, but my desktop died immediately after I posted that.. lol...superclocked

they will probably catch lemmings in all kinds of sick acts. masterbaiting, child p rn etc.

I wouldnt put anything past lemmings.

SonySoldier-_-